Thread: Can 7.0 focus on a storyline without the philosophizing

I think the reason for it is because this is what Final Fantasy games often try to do. Through their adventure they enter doubts and depressions and question the meaning of life and what they are fighting for, and Yoshi-P wanted to take that from the Final Fantasy games and do it in all this game's expansions as well.

Apparently EW resonated a lot with people suffering from depression who had not benefitted from any other sort of therapies, so it was a good thing for that reason alone.

The expansions can do this sort of thing whilst still having proper character development because it happened in some of the old final fantasy games. If they tackle depression, they can just do it in a way where the depression affects a particular character such as Thancred and watching him go through this whole period of depression and then come out of it and overcome the last boss with you.

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

I think the reason for it is because this is what Final Fantasy games often try to do. Through their adventure they enter doubts and depressions and question the meaning of life and what they are fighting for, and Yoshi-P wanted to take that from the Final Fantasy games and do it in all this game's expansions as well.

Apparently EW resonated a lot with people suffering from depression who had not benefitted from any other sort of therapies, so it was a good thing for that reason alone.

The expansions can do this sort of thing whilst still having proper character development because it happened in some of the old final fantasy games. If they tackle depression, they can just do it in a way where the depression affects a particular character such as Thancred and watching him go through this whole period of depression and then come out of it and overcome the last boss with you.

That is also a big problem. None of the main cast is suffering which makes the whole ordeal feel quite unrelated to us.

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yeah, I can certainly see how that'd rub people the wrong way. I felt the same about the game's laughable declaration that the 'power of friendship' only matters if you have the 'right' friends. The Ancients have repeatedly been shown in Amaurot, Elpis and Pandaemonium to have their own loved ones that they were fighting to protect only to be sabotaged by Venat.

We also know it's a safe bet that if Venat's ire was aimed at the Scions and the Sundered then they would not simply roll over and allow their own civilisations and loved ones to be destroyed. As such, there's no reason for any other civilisation to 'have to' be destroyed either. How strange, then, that the game decided to try and justify an act of genocide so long as it's aimed at the 'right' people and after so much screeching and preaching from the Scions regarding how such acts were never acceptable for any reason and are something to oppose down to the last man standing.

Since when did the game say it only mattered when you have the "right friends"? And how exactly did Venat sabotage their fight when it was a losing battle?

Venat didn't do what she did out of ire. If that's what you got out of that you weren't paying attention. The game didn't try to justify anything, it gave her reasons, same for Hermes, same for Emet yet it's Venat thats the bad guy here. Neither of those listed are good or evil imo. Just people doing what they feel is right.
Obviously the Scions don't generally condone acts such as this BUT it is the very reason they exist and them accepting that and her reasoning make sense. In the end they didn't hesitate to put her down when it was time. Same for Emet. None of the Scions hate the guy (Hermes or any Ascian really) for what he did/tried especially now. They had no control over what came before but they can act on the here n now hence why they stopped Emet. Its not black n white. I get you don't like Venat (I'm not a super fan of hers either) but come on..